Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults.
Nutrients 2018; 10(10)N

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the use of the bioelectrical impedance device (BIA) seca® mBCA 515 using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method, for body composition assessment in adults across the spectrum of body mass indices. It explores the utility of simple anthropometric measures (the waist height ratio (WHtR) and waist circumference (WC)) for the assessment of obesity. In the morning after an overnight fast (10 h), 30 participants underwent a body composition DXA (GE iDXA) scan, BIA (seca 515), and anthropometric measures. Compared to the DXA reference measure, the BIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 0.32 kg (limits of agreement -3.8 kg, 4.4 kg); overestimated fat free mass (FFM) by 0.43 kg (limits of agreement -8.2 kg, 4.3 kg). Some of the variation was explained by body mass index (BMI), as for FM, the mean difference of the normal range BMI group was smaller than for the overweight/obese group (0.25 kg and 0.35 kg, respectively) with wider limits of agreement (-4.30 kg, 4.81 kg, and -3.61 kg, 4.30 kg, respectively). There were significant differences in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume measurements between methods with BIA systematically overestimating VAT compared to DXA. WC was more strongly correlated with DXA FM (rho = 0.90, p < 0.001) than WHtR (rho = 0.83, p < 0.001). BIA had some agreement with DXA; however, they are not equivalent measures for the range of BMIs explored, with DXA remaining the more informative tool. WC is a useful and simple assessment tool for obesity.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia. kaitlin.day@monash.edu.Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia. alastair.kwok@monash.edu.Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia. Alison.evans@monash.edu.Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia. fernandagmata@gmail.com. School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. fernandagmata@gmail.com.School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. Antonio.Verdejo@monash.edu.Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK. k.hart@surrey.ac.uk.School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. l.ward@uq.edu.au.Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC 3168, Australia. helen.truby@monash.edu.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30308974

Citation

Day, Kaitlin, et al. "Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device Against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults." Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 10, 2018.
Day K, Kwok A, Evans A, et al. Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults. Nutrients. 2018;10(10).
Day, K., Kwok, A., Evans, A., Mata, F., Verdejo-Garcia, A., Hart, K., ... Truby, H. (2018). Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults. Nutrients, 10(10), doi:10.3390/nu10101469.
Day K, et al. Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device Against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults. Nutrients. 2018 Oct 10;10(10) PubMed PMID: 30308974.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults. AU - Day,Kaitlin, AU - Kwok,Alastair, AU - Evans,Alison, AU - Mata,Fernanda, AU - Verdejo-Garcia,Antonio, AU - Hart,Kathryn, AU - Ward,Leigh C, AU - Truby,Helen, Y1 - 2018/10/10/ PY - 2018/07/31/received PY - 2018/09/10/revised PY - 2018/10/04/accepted PY - 2018/10/13/entrez PY - 2018/10/13/pubmed PY - 2019/1/23/medline KW - anthropometry KW - bioelectrical impedance KW - body composition KW - dual X-ray absorptiometry KW - validation JF - Nutrients JO - Nutrients VL - 10 IS - 10 N2 - This study aimed to compare the use of the bioelectrical impedance device (BIA) seca® mBCA 515 using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method, for body composition assessment in adults across the spectrum of body mass indices. It explores the utility of simple anthropometric measures (the waist height ratio (WHtR) and waist circumference (WC)) for the assessment of obesity. In the morning after an overnight fast (10 h), 30 participants underwent a body composition DXA (GE iDXA) scan, BIA (seca 515), and anthropometric measures. Compared to the DXA reference measure, the BIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 0.32 kg (limits of agreement -3.8 kg, 4.4 kg); overestimated fat free mass (FFM) by 0.43 kg (limits of agreement -8.2 kg, 4.3 kg). Some of the variation was explained by body mass index (BMI), as for FM, the mean difference of the normal range BMI group was smaller than for the overweight/obese group (0.25 kg and 0.35 kg, respectively) with wider limits of agreement (-4.30 kg, 4.81 kg, and -3.61 kg, 4.30 kg, respectively). There were significant differences in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume measurements between methods with BIA systematically overestimating VAT compared to DXA. WC was more strongly correlated with DXA FM (rho = 0.90, p < 0.001) than WHtR (rho = 0.83, p < 0.001). BIA had some agreement with DXA; however, they are not equivalent measures for the range of BMIs explored, with DXA remaining the more informative tool. WC is a useful and simple assessment tool for obesity. SN - 2072-6643 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30308974/Comparison_of_a_Bioelectrical_Impedance_Device_against_the_Reference_Method_Dual_Energy_X_Ray_Absorptiometry_and_Anthropometry_for_the_Evaluation_of_Body_Composition_in_Adults_ L2 - http://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=nu10101469 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -